And two, the General staff planners had calculated they could be fighting a mobile war for 3 months only.
When did the tank battle of Kursk play out? 1943? How many months?
So ... question: how did they do that?
The 1941 Winter indeed brought everything to a halt. It slowed to advance. What would have happened, had Operation Barbarossa commenced 2 months earlier, as had been the plan?
And it, the tank battle at Kursk, was just months after the debacle of Stalingrad in 1942/1943. All they had to do was hold out.
Considering these things, one had to wonder, whether indeed was "stupid" as you claim. The more so, since Joseph Mustache Stalin blurted out to FDR in 44, when the latter claimed Hitler to be stupid: You really think a stupid man can get to a Great Leader like me? I considered becoming a NSDAP gauleiter, because on a personal level: Adolph likes me.
Stalin knew, it was only by the skin of the teeth of the soviet slaves ....
What would have happened, had Operation Barbarossa commenced 2 months earlier, as had been the plan?
No one knows, because that's not when the invasion was launched. Two months earlier certainly would have given the Germans more time before the notorious Russian winter got into full swing. But that's not when Hitler chose to go.
And of course the invasion turned a friend and ally into an enemy: the country with the largest land mass of any on Earth and with a huge population was now an implacable enemy with an endless supply of soldiers. As Stalin once pointed out, in reference to the relatively low-quality of most Soviet weapons compared to the finely machined guns (early in the war, at least) of the Germans: "Quantity has a quality all its own."
I don't see any reason to change my opinion of Hitler.
friend? wow .... temporary local common interest. The scourge of commie propaganda and terrorism was rampant.
And besides, as for choice, The commitment of troops and material was jinxed by Italian fuck ups in Greece and the Balkan. To secure the flank, something had to be done.
As far as your opinion is concerned, you are under no obligation to change that.
stupid: mentally slow, lacking ordinary activity of mind, dull, inane,
The scourge of commie propaganda and terrorism was rampant.
That's always the way with Communists. Pretty much the same with the Nazis, of course. R.J. Rummel spent his career researching Death by Government (the title of his book, first published in the 1980s). He found the Nazis were #3 on the mass-murder list of the 20th century, behind the Soviets and the Communist Chinese (the Chinese Nationalists weren't exactly choir boys either).
61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
(etc)
As for Hitler's stupidity: I repeat that launching Barbarossa when he did (or at all, frankly) was probably stupid, even if "something had to be done" at that point in time. For that matter, starting World War II wasn't such a great idea either. If not stupid, then certainly psychopathic; something like 70 million people died and many more than that were injured, orphaned, traumatized, made homeless, or harmed in some other way. And there's no denying that things did NOT go the way Hitler planned or hoped: so probably not a smart choice.
Hitler's "stupidity" wasn't a lack of brain power; it was the kind of stupid that has its roots in emotional damage. Bad choices, warped views, too much action based on old feelings being expressed towards things in the present, and so on. Just my opinion, of course.
Of course. It is not necessary to label government with infamous names. All government is the leading cause of death.
There is an interesting book: Tax Revolt. It delineates all known tax revolts. hahaha, it lines up perfectly with history. Either governments revolt against a tribute, resulting in war, or try to exact tribute from another country, with rape, pillage, death and disease on its heals.
On a smaller scale, people do the same thing. Protesting tax, levies, tributes, robots [ corvee, service in kind], draft, you name it. Why is that? We' ll get to that a little later[1].
Who started WOII? I am not sorry to say so, but you are typically deep into the: we good guys always pardigm. No, UK, USA played a very foul ploy and the continuation of the war AFTER Dunkirk was totally unnecessary from a logical point of view. A peace proposal with far reaching concessions by Germany was made. Alas, drunk Churchill would think differently. But really, his money masters thought differently.
In a sense, comparing the Peloponnese War, especially the part played by Athens in the Delos confederacy, it is quite clear that when government goes into the direction of forcing its people to support something, instead of the other way around, shit happens. In Athens, it meant twice the downfall of Athens. In this case: twice the downfall of the UK. [we are watching the last vestiges of it][2]
As Freeman Dyson, a former member of bomber command succinctly said with shame: the [fire]bombing orders were unnecessary.
Yet, people followed orders. Only a few said no, and were executed, or sentenced to long prison sentences.
But ... it is logic when look at from a different perspective: This war was wanted by money interests. Since 1933, these interests have frustrated, boycotted, sabotaged any process that lifts people up from despair.
You think FDR with his green new deal was a success? Or typically American? It is a shameful program that has made everyone dependent on big gov, grew the federal government out of proportion and set the people up to participate in the war they wanted on the wings of incessant propaganda. And many among the American people fell for it. The hate the left exudes towards those who think different is difficult to describe, but currently you can see it iteration.
When you would compare contemporary writings of Marx and Stirner, the differences could not be starker. And as usual, socialist / commie policies revolve around the perpetration of unlawfulness.
And this is why people protest taxes, levies, robots, etc. Because it IS unlawful. It is theft, often based on warped reasoning, sucking life-force from those choosing to give in. And this is why governments protests tribute. For the very same reason.
If this would have been your reason to say: stupid, I would have agreed with you.
[2] I am not a psychologist. As far as I am able to analyze things, and I have listened to many of Hitlers speeches, and read his book, and some other source material, he was quite aligned with himself, living out his design. It does not mean I judge his policies, for good or bad, it is just a observation from a human perspective.
When it comes to things he was in favor of, or against, there is much, I am reluctant to admit, I agree with. And this brings me to means and methods.
It seems to me, that he has curbed his idealism with pragmatism, and not shying away from paying in kind. He was politically savvy enough. Many of the process steps on the international arena, reminds me of what Putin is doing. Step 1, step 2, etc, careful, always trying to not escalate, while pushing through ruthlessly his own agenda, driving hard bargains.
I think it would be easy to compare the Munich 1938 agreement with the Minsk II accord. It is almost the same type of agreement and subsequent behavior from those resisting a movement against their predatory schemes.
A populist is in essence connected to the general senses of the population. He does not try to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people, but tries to connect to it, embody it. An ideologue, be they Marxist or worse: Straussian or simply: power hungry [Macchiavellian], tries to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people by repression, distinction, double standards, blowing up the very fabric of society, creating havoc and superimposing his own solutions to the problems he himself created.
It explains why the current clique is vehemently anti-populist. Stalin, FDR, Churchill were no populists. They were ideologues or in the service of ideologues.
What if there was no other option?
And two, the General staff planners had calculated they could be fighting a mobile war for 3 months only.
When did the tank battle of Kursk play out? 1943? How many months?
So ... question: how did they do that?
The 1941 Winter indeed brought everything to a halt. It slowed to advance. What would have happened, had Operation Barbarossa commenced 2 months earlier, as had been the plan?
And it, the tank battle at Kursk, was just months after the debacle of Stalingrad in 1942/1943. All they had to do was hold out.
Considering these things, one had to wonder, whether indeed was "stupid" as you claim. The more so, since Joseph Mustache Stalin blurted out to FDR in 44, when the latter claimed Hitler to be stupid: You really think a stupid man can get to a Great Leader like me? I considered becoming a NSDAP gauleiter, because on a personal level: Adolph likes me.
Stalin knew, it was only by the skin of the teeth of the soviet slaves ....
No one knows, because that's not when the invasion was launched. Two months earlier certainly would have given the Germans more time before the notorious Russian winter got into full swing. But that's not when Hitler chose to go.
And of course the invasion turned a friend and ally into an enemy: the country with the largest land mass of any on Earth and with a huge population was now an implacable enemy with an endless supply of soldiers. As Stalin once pointed out, in reference to the relatively low-quality of most Soviet weapons compared to the finely machined guns (early in the war, at least) of the Germans: "Quantity has a quality all its own."
I don't see any reason to change my opinion of Hitler.
friend? wow .... temporary local common interest. The scourge of commie propaganda and terrorism was rampant.
And besides, as for choice, The commitment of troops and material was jinxed by Italian fuck ups in Greece and the Balkan. To secure the flank, something had to be done.
As far as your opinion is concerned, you are under no obligation to change that.
stupid: mentally slow, lacking ordinary activity of mind, dull, inane,
That's always the way with Communists. Pretty much the same with the Nazis, of course. R.J. Rummel spent his career researching Death by Government (the title of his book, first published in the 1980s). He found the Nazis were #3 on the mass-murder list of the 20th century, behind the Soviets and the Communist Chinese (the Chinese Nationalists weren't exactly choir boys either).
(etc)
As for Hitler's stupidity: I repeat that launching Barbarossa when he did (or at all, frankly) was probably stupid, even if "something had to be done" at that point in time. For that matter, starting World War II wasn't such a great idea either. If not stupid, then certainly psychopathic; something like 70 million people died and many more than that were injured, orphaned, traumatized, made homeless, or harmed in some other way. And there's no denying that things did NOT go the way Hitler planned or hoped: so probably not a smart choice.
Hitler's "stupidity" wasn't a lack of brain power; it was the kind of stupid that has its roots in emotional damage. Bad choices, warped views, too much action based on old feelings being expressed towards things in the present, and so on. Just my opinion, of course.
Of course. It is not necessary to label government with infamous names. All government is the leading cause of death.
There is an interesting book: Tax Revolt. It delineates all known tax revolts. hahaha, it lines up perfectly with history. Either governments revolt against a tribute, resulting in war, or try to exact tribute from another country, with rape, pillage, death and disease on its heals.
On a smaller scale, people do the same thing. Protesting tax, levies, tributes, robots [ corvee, service in kind], draft, you name it. Why is that? We' ll get to that a little later[1].
Who started WOII? I am not sorry to say so, but you are typically deep into the: we good guys always pardigm. No, UK, USA played a very foul ploy and the continuation of the war AFTER Dunkirk was totally unnecessary from a logical point of view. A peace proposal with far reaching concessions by Germany was made. Alas, drunk Churchill would think differently. But really, his money masters thought differently.
In a sense, comparing the Peloponnese War, especially the part played by Athens in the Delos confederacy, it is quite clear that when government goes into the direction of forcing its people to support something, instead of the other way around, shit happens. In Athens, it meant twice the downfall of Athens. In this case: twice the downfall of the UK. [we are watching the last vestiges of it][2]
As Freeman Dyson, a former member of bomber command succinctly said with shame: the [fire]bombing orders were unnecessary.
Yet, people followed orders. Only a few said no, and were executed, or sentenced to long prison sentences.
But ... it is logic when look at from a different perspective: This war was wanted by money interests. Since 1933, these interests have frustrated, boycotted, sabotaged any process that lifts people up from despair.
You think FDR with his green new deal was a success? Or typically American? It is a shameful program that has made everyone dependent on big gov, grew the federal government out of proportion and set the people up to participate in the war they wanted on the wings of incessant propaganda. And many among the American people fell for it. The hate the left exudes towards those who think different is difficult to describe, but currently you can see it iteration.
When you would compare contemporary writings of Marx and Stirner, the differences could not be starker. And as usual, socialist / commie policies revolve around the perpetration of unlawfulness.
And this is why people protest taxes, levies, robots, etc. Because it IS unlawful. It is theft, often based on warped reasoning, sucking life-force from those choosing to give in. And this is why governments protests tribute. For the very same reason.
If this would have been your reason to say: stupid, I would have agreed with you.
[2] I am not a psychologist. As far as I am able to analyze things, and I have listened to many of Hitlers speeches, and read his book, and some other source material, he was quite aligned with himself, living out his design. It does not mean I judge his policies, for good or bad, it is just a observation from a human perspective.
When it comes to things he was in favor of, or against, there is much, I am reluctant to admit, I agree with. And this brings me to means and methods.
It seems to me, that he has curbed his idealism with pragmatism, and not shying away from paying in kind. He was politically savvy enough. Many of the process steps on the international arena, reminds me of what Putin is doing. Step 1, step 2, etc, careful, always trying to not escalate, while pushing through ruthlessly his own agenda, driving hard bargains.
I think it would be easy to compare the Munich 1938 agreement with the Minsk II accord. It is almost the same type of agreement and subsequent behavior from those resisting a movement against their predatory schemes.
A populist is in essence connected to the general senses of the population. He does not try to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people, but tries to connect to it, embody it. An ideologue, be they Marxist or worse: Straussian or simply: power hungry [Macchiavellian], tries to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people by repression, distinction, double standards, blowing up the very fabric of society, creating havoc and superimposing his own solutions to the problems he himself created.
It explains why the current clique is vehemently anti-populist. Stalin, FDR, Churchill were no populists. They were ideologues or in the service of ideologues.